jpete wrote: Devil505 wrote:& you have certainly given him enough time to fairly judge him, haven't you?

Yes. I did.

Don't you think....With all the complex problems any President would be faced with at this point....That we should at least give him THREE WEEKS to fix everything!!

I didn't ask him to fix everything. That is the Obamite's "reductio ad absurdum" argument to shut down any criticism of the messiah.

I'd like to see him move in the right direction. More debt is not that direction. More debt is 180* from the right direction. And trying to "out stimulus" GWB's already failed and partially spent stimulus is even worse.

I will give him credit for this. He learned a little something from the previous administration. Contrition goes a long way.

WASHINGTON - “I screwed up,” President Barack Obama told NBC’s Brian Williams Tuesday in the wake of his nominee to be secretary of health and human services, Tom Daschle, withdrawing his name from consideration.

So far BO's made some real fine cabinet picks talk about integrity. He also promised NO MORE PORK and take a look at his bill nothing but pork it's hard to get past the pork squealy. What about the Freedom of Choice act what kind of freedom is that with my tax dollars being stolen for that let alone my taxes pay for it anywhere in the world. If you act irresponsible then YOU can pay for your own stupidly. Now I'm supposed to trust him to do more damage to our Constitution and double our debt we will never ever recover from. And another rant is it's Bush's fault we' re in this debt my question is where were the democrats when all the bills were being passed, they know how to point a finger now but where were their voices then. It took a few years to get us in the debt we're in but in less than a month they're (democrats) going to double it in pure pork. So if Bush was that inept what does that make BO he will far surpass the debt we're in now by 2x. So who do I trust all the new representative that should replace those in office now. ALL THOSE THAT VOTED US INTO DEBT AND ALL THOSE WHO VOTED THEMSELVES RAISES DURING THIS DEPRESSION SHOULD GO ASAP !!!!!!!!

stockingfull wrote: ... In any event, the risks of the alternative of not stimulating the economy are very well-known, because that's exactly what Herbert Hoover did. Or, rather, didn't do. And we're sure not looking for that result.

So the concept is to stoke the fire of the economy to keep people working, buying things and paying taxes in order to prevent things from grinding to a halt. Of course there are risks. It will need to be managed closely (unlike last fall's bank bailout party) and not every dollar spent will be on a bridge, since that's not the only sector of the economy that's been hurt.

However, so far as I'm aware, there aren't any credible economists running around saying Hoover's method is preferable to the stimulus approach. If there were, Bush 43 would have had them standing behind him in Sept while telling us why there would be no bailout. Put another way, the "choose your poison: Hoover or the Weimar Republic" debate has been had and Hoover lost -- again. And I'm not an economist but I have to believe that the experts know what happened in the Weimar Republic and believe that can be avoided here.

The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.

Haven't you heard? The WSJ is now owned by Rupert Murdoch, of Faux News fame. You want me to match it with a NYTimes editorial?

Have you got a real economist who agrees with you, or just the usual shills for the wingnut right?

I heard any cash stimulus check to citizens will be socked away, we'll save it. So the economy won't be boosted. My previous $400 from the government ( which evoked the most bizarre reaction in me, one of surreal amazement) went right back into my gas tank, and on back to ExxonMobil.

I don't trust any of 'em.

I never thought I would see The Heartbeat of America turn into The Flatline of America.

I'm going to work tomorrow for a rotten rich bitch I swore I would never do that again; but after watching the news I better be grateful for any work I can get! Sux.

According to Nobel economist Friedrich Hayek, a contemporary of Keynes and perhaps his greatest critic, Keynes "was guided by one central idea . . . that general employment was always positively correlated with the aggregate demand for consumer goods." Keynes argued that government should intervene in the economy to maintain aggregate demand and full employment, with the goal of smoothing out business cycles. During recessions, he asserted, government should borrow money and spend it.

As Hayek observed, "some of the most orthodox disciples of Keynes appear consistently to have thrown overboard all the traditional theory of price determination and of distribution, all that used to be the backbone of economic theory, and in consequence, in my opinion, to have ceased to understand any economics."

It's a nice crash course. If you choose to reject it, you won't be alone, and I won't be surprised.

Professor Dick Armey, Newt's very own majority leader and supply-side guru, is the guy we should listen to about what to do about a tanking economy? Are you serious? He's a tax-cutter!

Come on, "trickle-down" "supply side" tax-cut "voodoo" economics has TWICE been an abject failure when times were far less dangerous than they are right now. First from 1981-1993, then from 2000-2009. They don't work when times are good; they sure as sh!t don't work when times are awful. Ask Herbert Hoover.

Or ask Nobel economics prize winner and Princeton prof Paul Krugman (who also holds Reagan responsible for the beginning of the deindustrialization of the US):

Professor Dick Armey, Newt's very own majority leader and supply-side guru, is the guy we should listen to about what to do about a tanking economy? Are you serious? He's a tax-cutter!

Come on, "trickle-down" "supply side" tax-cut "voodoo" economics has TWICE been an abject failure when times were far less dangerous than they are right now. First from 1981-1993, then from 2000-2009. They don't work when times are good; they sure as *censored* don't work when times are awful. Ask Herbert Hoover.

Or ask Nobel economics prize winner and Princeton prof Paul Krugman (who also holds Reagan responsible for the beginning of the deindustrialization of the US):

So, Jeff, are you seriously arguing that we can tax-cut our way out of this, or are you just stockpiling coal for the long economic winter? And some pencils to sell?

So borrowing money from Communist China and devaluing the dollar is your answer?

Japan had the "Lost Decade" due to zero interest rate policy and banks heavily leveraged into over valued real estate. Sound familiar? But somehow the USA is immune to economic realities?

Yes, I'm saying tax cuts are the answer. Now, whether or not Congress allows them to be TRUE tax cuts remains a question. Tax cuts without spending cuts is merely deficit spending.

You don't think you can spend your money better than the government? Why not give the government 100% of your money? You won't because it's foolish.

I hold Reagan responsible for the beginning of the deindustrialization of the US too. He started NAFTA. GHWB advanced it, WJC passed it, and GWB expanded it with CAFTA. What's your point? Mine is that government is NEVER your friend. They don't care about your well being and should NEVER be trusted or relied upon to do the right thing.

But you seem to think that government is ready, willing, and able to fix the problem despite any evidence to support that.

We've been following your Keynesian policy for decades and look where it got us. I don't understand the theory of "some is bad but more is better"? It makes no sense.

stockingfull wrote:Seems to me that all this still completely ignores the economic "inertia" which the stimulus seeks to maintain.

That represents the "fire" which the stimulus is intended to stoke. Actually, stimuli dovetail with the "trickle-down" "less-gets-you-more" thinking far better than pure tax cuts do.

If, and I realize it's a big if, the tax cuts were matched with spending cuts, then we would be all set.

How many millions does it cost to print and mail all those stimulus checks? Versus the no cost option of simply not taking as much of my money every week?

And you still haven't answered the question. Do you run your house the way you suggest you'd like to run the country? Do you spend more than you earn and continue to run up credit cards which you have no hope of paying off in three lifetimes?